2011 Federal election polls, demographics, predictions

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Definately can't lump all conservative voters in together - some people I know genuinely want to live in a better society and they feel those kind of fiscal policies are the way there.

That said I for sure have a few buddies who basically do not want to share their money in any way shape or form though - it's not about them wanting to decide how to spend their money, it's that they don't want to give any of it to poorer people who they perceive as "bums".

Which is why you need a fair tax system that requires you by law to pay and 'help' other people. I have no problem with that, nor do I think that the rest of us 'conservatives' have a problem with that.

The problem we have is with a $6 billion dollar child care program run by the government. What is wrong with tax credits aimed at low income families?

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by Azure

More and more it seems you have no clue what conservatism is. I don't even think you know what you're talking about here.

There is nothing wrong with a strong welfare program to support low-income earners, or the 'poor' amongst us, because the fact is, not all of us GET the same chance to succeed in life. I support that, and I support a health care program that provides solid basic coverage for everyone, rich or poor. What I don't support is a $6 billion dollar child care policy, that basically comes with no strings attached. Nor do I support increased taxation against corporations simply because they make a lot of money. They do make a lot of money, but they also provide a lot of jobs for Canadians.

I support the right for people to make their own decisions, to live their own life, to marry who THEY want to marry, and to spend THEIR money, the way THEY feel fit to spend it. I don't support a government that wants to constantly take away that right.

Socialist policies have never, ever worked. Not here, not in the US, not in Russia, not in China, not anywhere. Ultimately, socialism is all about the belief that the government knows best, which is ultimately a belief that we shouldn't be free to make our own decisions, and that is a freedom that is crucial to the health of our democracy.

You can argue day and night about Harper and HIS brand of conservatism. I have said many times that this election is about economic policy, and the NDP is quite frankly uneducated when it comes to dictating how our country operates in that regard. Layton has been exposed numerous times backtracking when it comes to tough economic questions, and in my opinion, people are voting for him not because of what he promises, but because he can talk the smoothest.

I'll go with the devil I know, and not the devil that doesn't even understand how to guide this country economically.

And yes, I would still give the Liberals 170 seats if it meant the NDP would go away forever.

????

What's a socialist policy? You say healthcare for all and welfare for the poor but socialist policies have never worked. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Seems to me the terms socialism and conservatism has lost all meaning, and everyone is arguing about terms that they define in wildly different ways.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The problem is, most rich people don't want to share significantly with those less fortunate or don't allocate the money wisely to the right organizations in the right ratio. If the gov't leaves it up to everyone to decide for themselves how much to share, a lot of people won't share and that means a lot of people with mental illnesses, physical illnesses, drug addicitons, kids from abusive homes, etc suffer.

I'm not calling every Conservative supporter selfish although I know many are. I'm calling the viewpoint about social policies a selfish one.

But of course the caveat is that our Conservatives are more liberal than in some countries.

I think the problem with this thread is that we're talking in extremes. Read the parties platforms. All argue that we need programs for all of the societal ailements that you describe. The only question is to what extent, and by what means. The CPC isn't even talking about significantly cutting back on anything, this election issuewise is actually about to what degree further spending increases happen and how to fund them.

I think Conservatives as an ideology in this country, just identify that there is an efficient frontier that throwing money at problems solves them and that on a lot of things we're reaching that point and at others, they're continuing to throw money at them.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

????

What's a socialist policy? You say healthcare for all and welfare for the poor but socialist policies have never worked. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Seems to me the terms socialism and conservatism has lost all meaning, and everyone is arguing about terms that they define in wildly different ways.

Strong socialist policies that go beyond providing health care, EI, or other benefits to HELP people get on their feet. The incentive should still be in each one of us making our own living, and not living on a government paycheck unless we absolutely have too.

I should have been more specific.

[FanIn80]

Need exit polls, please.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The problem is, most rich people don't want to share significantly with those less fortunate or don't allocate the money wisely to the right organizations in the right ratio. If the gov't leaves it up to everyone to decide for themselves how much to share, a lot of people won't share and that means a lot of people with mental illnesses, physical illnesses, drug addicitons, kids from abusive homes, etc suffer.

I'm not calling every Conservative supporter selfish although I know many are. I'm calling the viewpoint about social policies a selfish one.

But of course the caveat is that our Conservatives are more liberal than in some countries.

Several rebuttals overall. First, you beaked off about equalization in a response to CC. Well, We're already paying welfare provinces so much money that they get better services than we do. So yeah, don't be surprised that we're not interested in paying any more. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad...15226-qmi.html

This report (from 2007) is also interesting. http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/...ights_2007.pdf

Highlights:
71% of Canadians with household incomes below $20k donated. 90% of Canadians with household incomes above $100k donated. The average annual donation total was $437, led by the richest, of course.

The province with the highest average donations? Yup. The most conservative province in the country. In fact, Albertans were 36% above the national average. The province with the lowest average? Why the most socialist one of all! Quebec, at barely half the national average.

Quebec, likewise, is loathe to volunteer time. In fact, they were the only province to fall below the national average for percentage of adults who volunteered. Saskatchewan was highest, Alberta middle of the pack. The provinces that averaged the most hours of volunteer service per volunteer? Maritimes (with the exception of PEI), Alberta and BC.

But, you know, we're all selfish #######s, I guess.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The problem is, most rich people don't want to share significantly with those less fortunate or don't allocate the money wisely to the right organizations in the right ratio.

So you'll force them to do what you want them to? And as per YOUR right ratio?

Isn't Communism more your gig?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yep, there are generous Conservatives. Which begs the question why they aren't interested in generous social policies. If people are happy to donate money to less fortunate on their own, why would they have a problem with gov't doing it in a more organized fashion.

I think you are confusing generous, with fiscally irresponsible.

[Azure]

Ouch, that has got to hurt.

So much for his ridiculous argument.

[chemgear]

^^ Nice job Resolute 14.

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Yep, there are generous Conservatives. Which begs the question why they aren't interested in letting someone (who obviously has no clue about the statistical facts/reality) just take their money and do whatever the frak they want with it. Ergo, they obviously must all be inherently selfish.

Fixed your post.

[Ashartus]

I wonder what would happen if the Conservatives won the most seats, but the NDP had a higher percentage of the popular vote (entirely possible if the NDP momentum continues). My guess would be a short CPC minority, followed by an NDP-led coalition.

[Kybosh]

A NDP led government, coalition or otherwise, scares the crap outta me.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

Socialist policies have never, ever worked. Not here, not in the US, not in Russia, not in China, not anywhere. Ultimately, socialism is all about the belief that the government knows best, which is ultimately a belief that we shouldn't be free to make our own decisions, and that is a freedom that is crucial to the health of our democracy.

It appears you belief a myth because Sweden does quite alright spending way, way more on social programs than does Canada. Not sure why you bring up Russia, their totalitarian system wasn't representative of Socialism as we're talking about it.

As for your summation of Socialism, it seems you misunderstand it as badly as you claim I misunderstand Conservatism. It is not ultimately about the belief that gov't knows best nor is it about people not being free to make decision. Theoretically in a democracy we are the gov't. People like you and me are the ones making the decisions. Not sure where you are getting this us vs the gov't idea.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are numerous different ways to provide help to low-income families or those in need, but I think we have a problem sitting down and talking about them because people like FDW are constantly crying and screaming about how the rich are making too much money.

Where I did cry and scream that people are making too much money? I said conservatism is more selfish than liberalism/socialism, don't put words in my mouth.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Several rebuttals overall. First, you beaked off about equalization in a response to CC. Well, We're already paying welfare provinces so much money that they get better services than we do. So yeah, don't be surprised that we're not interested in paying any more. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad...15226-qmi.html

This report (from 2007) is also interesting. http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/...ights_2007.pdf

Highlights:
71% of Canadians with household incomes below $20k donated. 90% of Canadians with household incomes above $100k donated. The average annual donation total was $437, led by the richest, of course.

The province with the highest average donations? Yup. The most conservative province in the country. In fact, Albertans were 36% above the national average. The province with the lowest average? Why the most socialist one of all! Quebec, at barely half the national average.

Quebec, likewise, is loathe to volunteer time. In fact, they were the only province to fall below the national average for percentage of adults who volunteered. Saskatchewan was highest, Alberta middle of the pack. The provinces that averaged the most hours of volunteer service per volunteer? Maritimes (with the exception of PEI), Alberta and BC.

But, you know, we're all selfish #######s, I guess.

Like I said, I wasn't saying conservative supporters are all selfish. I was saying conservatism is more selfish than liberalism/socialism. But yes these terms are problematic as someone makes the point above.

As I said earlier, somebody has to organize social programs. If not the gov't then who? Some corporation? What would be their incentive to be efficient if not the bottom line? I've seen several people question the efficacy of the gov't but that is the big organizing body we have to do programs that are of a universal/federal scale. What is the realistic alternative? We aren't going to run healthcare via donations from the rich are we?

As for your link about transfer payments and social programs, the provincial gov'ts control their own income through taxes and spending through programs. If they wanted to have better programs they'd tax and spend more. One has to ask whether the "have" provinces have worse programs because of their gov't and social policy rather than because they lose some money via transfer payments.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I think if the election results are the same or near what they were before the election, the opposition should foot the bill for the cost of the election.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by chemgear

So you'll force them to do what you want them to? And as per YOUR right ratio?

Isn't Communism more your gig?

What do I have to do with anything here? We're talking about citizens deciding that they want social programs and that the gov't should run them. I don't factor in to any of those so I'm not sure why you are using the term "you'll" and claiming I would force people to do things.

If the majority of citizens want healthcare and want the gov't to handle it then we are forcing everybody to buy in, yes. But if you've studied economics of healthcare you'd know universal healthcare is cheaper than the alternative because low-risk users don't opt out. We make some sacrifices for the common good.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think you are confusing generous, with fiscally irresponsible.

Well I know conservative supporters love to trot that one out all the time. But there are countries that spend significantly more on social programs as a % of GDP than Canada does that do quite well.

Social programs need not be fiscally irresponsible. Indeed not having universal health care costs the US more in terms of % of GDP than we spend. The costs get shoved down to your average person. This is one case where more socialized system would actually save the US and their citizens money.

I'm not trying to claim every idea the NDP has is gold and if people are thinking that is my claim than they have grossly misunderstood what I've said. I'm sure some of their social programs are not for my taste either.

But this blind belief that more spending on social programs must equal fiscal irresponsibility is naive IMO. It is transferring costs around. And if charging citizens through taxes allows the gov't to provide a better system (as in healthcare) then it certainly isn't fiscally irresponsible.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Several rebuttals overall. First, you beaked off about equalization in a response to CC. Well, We're already paying welfare provinces so much money that they get better services than we do. So yeah, don't be surprised that we're not interested in paying any more. http://www.torontosun.com/news/canad...15226-qmi.html

This report (from 2007) is also interesting. http://www.givingandvolunteering.ca/...ights_2007.pdf

Highlights:
71% of Canadians with household incomes below $20k donated. 90% of Canadians with household incomes above $100k donated. The average annual donation total was $437, led by the richest, of course.

The province with the highest average donations? Yup. The most conservative province in the country. In fact, Albertans were 36% above the national average. The province with the lowest average? Why the most socialist one of all! Quebec, at barely half the national average.

Quebec, likewise, is loathe to volunteer time. In fact, they were the only province to fall below the national average for percentage of adults who volunteered. Saskatchewan was highest, Alberta middle of the pack. The provinces that averaged the most hours of volunteer service per volunteer? Maritimes (with the exception of PEI), Alberta and BC.

But, you know, we're all selfish #######s, I guess.

Oh yeah, let's celebrate the generosity of this rich Canadians who donate, on average, $471 per year to charity, and honor the top 10% of Canadians who donates at least $1002 per year.

And I guess you forgot to quote the part of the report that mentioned that the 'poor' donate more generously than the 'rich' (as a percentage of income).

With all this generosity, why do we need government funded social programs at all?

When you consider that most Canadians probably spend more than $1000 a year on Tim Hortons or Starbucks coffee, is our generosity really something to be celebrating?

Governments provide a social safety net because the general public won't fund one through charitable contributions. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Oh yeah, let's celebrate the generosity of this rich Canadians who donate, on average, $471 per year to charity, and honor the top 10% of Canadians who donates at least $1002 per year.

And I guess you forgot to quote the part of the report that mentioned that the 'poor' donate more generously than the 'rich' (as a percentage of income).

With all this generosity, why do we need government funded social programs at all?

When you consider that most Canadians probably spend more than $1000 a year on Tim Hortons or Starbucks coffee, is our generosity really something to be celebrating?

Governments provide a social safety net because the general public won't fund one through charitable contributions. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

Well said.